Submission to the Inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023
Submission to the Inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023
Thank you! I agree with you 100%. You argue the most important points, and I have argued the same for decades. If we cannot refuse medical intervention of any kind, then we have no liberty at all.
The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee has completed the inquiry. The report does not acknowledge or respond to my argument that mandates for vaccines that kill a percentage of people violate the right to life.
A workplace that mandates that a percentage of employees must die from vaccination for the benefit of other employees is not a safe workplace. The community does not have the right to kill innocent people to achieve a higher standard of health, even if a higher standard is achievable by killing innocent people.
Is there an email we can send a media request to? We'd like to interview you on normative ethics, and a general ontological frolic to introduce our viewers to practical applications of philosophy.
Basically we want them to start asking whether they would 'kill the fat man'.
Hi Matt, You can email me at kowalik.michael@pm.me . At this stage I don't do interviews. I work hard to ensure that my writings/arguments speak for themselves and engage with each relevant issues as precisely as possible. I am nevertheless happy to answer any questions by email. I post everything that fits the essay format on Substack and any impromptu commentary here: https://t.me/NormalParty.
I understand the logic behind the no interview rule.
I'm finding it really difficult to find philosophers who can talk normative ethics with any sense of intellectual honesty - can you point me in the direction of any that you recommend I approach?
I have had a few screening conversations off air, and whenever the topic of Covid comes up they seem to magically forget everything else they've espoused in the conversation up until that point.
'For the greater good. Unprecedented circumstances. The ends justify the means. It is different because of the health aspect.'
I'm not that fussed over which side they come down on, I just want an intelligent discussion, instead of the variations of logical fallacy I'm getting.
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/cr7764 After Covid, I would be surprised if any of them spoke against the official dogma. If you do get an interview with any of them, I would be happy to make an exception and debate them on the question of vaccine mandates, provided there is disagreement. Obviously there would be no place for a debate if we all agree (and I hope we do).
Ok here is an idea. I've been running live panels (copying ABC's QandA format). The next one for example is with Peter Boghossian (Sokal Squared, Street Epistemology) https://app.tickets.org.au/discernable/impossible
I'll approach the names you mentioned and see if I can entice them into such a live panel debate event in Melbourne, and get back to you.
The submission is already sent, but the condensed points in the submission should form a comprehensive argument in their own right. Thank you for your good suggestion, I will remember to include the paper in any future submissions.
COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 regrettably excludes healthcare workers and government employees, but it is a step in the right direction. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1358
Thank you! I agree with you 100%. You argue the most important points, and I have argued the same for decades. If we cannot refuse medical intervention of any kind, then we have no liberty at all.
The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee has completed the inquiry. The report does not acknowledge or respond to my argument that mandates for vaccines that kill a percentage of people violate the right to life.
A workplace that mandates that a percentage of employees must die from vaccination for the benefit of other employees is not a safe workplace. The community does not have the right to kill innocent people to achieve a higher standard of health, even if a higher standard is achievable by killing innocent people.
The Bills are yet to be voted on by the Senate.
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/RB000100/toc_pdf/COVID-19VaccinationStatus(PreventionofDiscrimination)Bill2022andtheFairWorkAmendment(ProhibitingCOVID-19VaccineDiscrimination)Bill2023.pdf
Hey Michael,
Is there an email we can send a media request to? We'd like to interview you on normative ethics, and a general ontological frolic to introduce our viewers to practical applications of philosophy.
Basically we want them to start asking whether they would 'kill the fat man'.
Matt
support@discernable.io
Hi Matt, You can email me at kowalik.michael@pm.me . At this stage I don't do interviews. I work hard to ensure that my writings/arguments speak for themselves and engage with each relevant issues as precisely as possible. I am nevertheless happy to answer any questions by email. I post everything that fits the essay format on Substack and any impromptu commentary here: https://t.me/NormalParty.
I understand the logic behind the no interview rule.
I'm finding it really difficult to find philosophers who can talk normative ethics with any sense of intellectual honesty - can you point me in the direction of any that you recommend I approach?
I have had a few screening conversations off air, and whenever the topic of Covid comes up they seem to magically forget everything else they've espoused in the conversation up until that point.
'For the greater good. Unprecedented circumstances. The ends justify the means. It is different because of the health aspect.'
I'm not that fussed over which side they come down on, I just want an intelligent discussion, instead of the variations of logical fallacy I'm getting.
Before Covid, I would have recommended these three, with Korsgaard being by far the most accomplished, one of my influences: https://philosophy.fas.harvard.edu/people/christine-korsgaard or https://sites.harvard.edu/korsgaar/
https://philosophy.cornell.edu/julia-markovits
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/cr7764 After Covid, I would be surprised if any of them spoke against the official dogma. If you do get an interview with any of them, I would be happy to make an exception and debate them on the question of vaccine mandates, provided there is disagreement. Obviously there would be no place for a debate if we all agree (and I hope we do).
Ok here is an idea. I've been running live panels (copying ABC's QandA format). The next one for example is with Peter Boghossian (Sokal Squared, Street Epistemology) https://app.tickets.org.au/discernable/impossible
I'll approach the names you mentioned and see if I can entice them into such a live panel debate event in Melbourne, and get back to you.
That would be an epic watch.
Wait, I just saw they are all overseas. I'll rethink this but in principle a debate format would be very helpful for people to watch.
Please also submit a copy of your academic paper as a PDF to your submission. Otherwise, they will not read it.
The submission is already sent, but the condensed points in the submission should form a comprehensive argument in their own right. Thank you for your good suggestion, I will remember to include the paper in any future submissions.